Bradley Manning wants to live as a woman

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yeah, the transphobia already in this thread is pretty awful.

In any case, I wish her luck in her transition. Hopefully, wherever she'll be imprisoned will let her have access to HRT (although probably not).

What is HRT?

Hormone replacement therapy.

Also, a lot of you people are being absolutely awful, but I say that more in sorrow than in anger at this point.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yeah, the transphobia already in this thread is pretty awful.

In any case, I wish her luck in her transition. Hopefully, wherever she'll be imprisoned will let her have access to HRT (although probably not).

What is HRT?

Hormone replacement therapy.

Also, a lot of you people are being absolutely awful, but I say that more in sorrow than in anger at this point.

Thanks, Nathan, I had no clue.

I'm not sure if I'm in favor of the government paying for it though.  I have to give it some more thought.   

You're welcome.

I think that depends on one's opinion of where the burden for health care in prison in general should lie, but I can understand why one might characterize or be tempted to characterize this sort of thing as elective or relating more to mental health. I would disagree with the implications of characterizing it this way, but I can understand why one might.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yeah, the transphobia already in this thread is pretty awful.

In any case, I wish her luck in her transition. Hopefully, wherever she'll be imprisoned will let her have access to HRT (although probably not).

What is HRT?

Hormone replacement therapy.

Also, a lot of you people are being absolutely awful, but I say that more in sorrow than in anger at this point.

Thanks, Nathan, I had no clue.

I'm not sure if I'm in favor of the government paying for it though.  I have to give it some more thought.    

You're welcome.

I think that depends on one's opinion of where the burden for health care in prison in general should lie, but I can understand why one might characterize or be tempted to characterize this sort of thing as elective or relating more to mental health. I would disagree with the implications of characterizing it this way, but I can understand why one might.

Well, even mental health issues shouldn't be overlooked, but I guess I'm wondering is it necessary, whatever that might mean.  Necessary medical, dental, mental health issues I have no problem with.  We're locking them up so that's the cost of doing so.  I doubt he needs HRT to live a non-torturous existence in prison, but honestly, I have no clue.  I suspect in the the end the feds will never pony up for it.

I agree with you that mental health issues shouldn't be overlooked but the thing is in the prison system a lot of the time they are.

I think he might very well need HRT to live a non-torturous existence in prison but I don't want to say for sure because trans* people's experiences can vary pretty widely.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think he might very well need HRT to live a non-torturous existence in prison but I don't want to say for sure because trans* people's experiences can vary pretty widely.

Sorry for this ignorant question, but what does the asterisk in "trans*" stand for?

It's used as a shorthand for the fact that 'trans-' can be the first element in a variety of conceptually related words, most of which are at least somewhat controversial in terms of definition and usage. Basically, it's what at least the circles I run in have settled upon as a neutral indicator that the word can be expanded in a bunch of different ways.

ETA: I see drj got here first, and her explanation is better and more detailed than mine.

ETA2:

Oh Jesus dude just cut it out.

Glass houses, Cory.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

...her current behavior.

Lol.

Please contribute something substantive and worthwhile or don't contribute at all, Cory.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Regardless of what these medical professionals end up deciding, Link, surely it does us no harm to, even if only provisionally, respect Manning's wishes for the time being rather than going out of our way to justify not so doing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Hey, memphis, DemPGH, et al., I know you might not really care about this very much, but

It's just being polite, and it costs nothing.

It's just being polite, and it costs nothing.

It's just being polite, and it costs nothing.

It's just being polite, and it costs nothing.

It's just being polite, and it costs nothing.

It's just being polite, and it costs nothing.

It's just being polite, and it costs nothing.

To be honest, the 'biological fact' thing is understandable in terms of how it informs your thinking in that you have every right to prefer chromosomal (memphis) or anatomical (DemPGH and I think a couple of people earlier in the thread) standards for gender differentiation to the more social-constructivist alternatives that people like drj, Tik, and I have been advocating, but insisting on that is simply rude. I'm forgiving of this sort of thing from religious conservatives, because in their case it's part of a cohesive, defined, particular, sacralized view of reality in which it really does make more sense to insist on deference to one's chromosomes than not to. Coming from someone claiming to be some kind of liberal, it's just bigotry.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

And I reiterate my support for LGBT rights and equality. This "he" "she" issue is not that, however.

...

.....

.......

...what Alfred said.

Nathan mentioned a "social-constructivist" view. One thing I don't get is: if a person is trans because of that person's social self-concept of their gender, that seems to suggest there's no set gender identity that corresponds to one's bodily sex.  But if that is the case, why would changing one's body be a medical necessity?  I can understand if the idea is that there are male brains and female brains that are different and require the appropriate body to go along with it or else there is dysfunction, but that's not constructivist.

This is actually a really good question and one I don't really feel qualified to try to fully answer right now, more because I have a splitting headache than anything else. I will say that I tend to just err on the side of deferring to people's self-perceptions of their own situations on this issue if not on all others, even though I'm personally a bit leery of surgical sex reassignment.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If one's gender isn't somehow determined by internal psychological consideration, why would one want to have reassignment surgery in the first place? Would it be simply because of a very, very strong desire for a different place in society than that which one felt one had been allotted by one's preexisting gender (as you're defining it)? Because while that does make some degree of sense I can tell you it's not how most trans* people think about it. Even HRT, to say nothing of surgery, is a very radical move for a lot of people in terms of health, proprioception, and social functioning.

I do get why gender as defined in the social-constructivist way can seem like the sort of thing one might not really have a conscious abstract understanding of unless it deviates from the norm. I'm not sure I agree with it, but the idea that cisgender people (cis- being the Latin prefix antonymous to trans- for those who might be reading this who are new to these sorts of conversations) by and large don't have 'gender identities' as such in the way that somebody like me or drj or Tik tends to think about them is one that I've encountered before.